Any chance you can put this explanation in a different way, focusing on the shaft alignments rather than azimuths?

"When I checked your data using SkyGlobe, I found that the 45 degree angle between the two main Belt Stars did not occur in 10,500 BC but more like in 12,000 BC,

**one thousand five hundred years previously.**In 10,500 the angle was more like 35 degrees (see Giza: The Truth pp. 364-7, although note that we have made our figures slightly more accurate since the hardback was published). I admit that I am doing nothing more scientific than using a protractor held up against the screen, and that the figures vary slightly according to which belt star is on the meridian when you measure, but I think the variation is sufficient to seriously call into question your insistence that 10,500 is pinpointed with great accuracy."

There's huge variance here, with respect to the shafts. It seems hard for me to believe that Bauval, a careful researcher, could miss this big when it comes to where the belt stars were in ca 10.5kbc, and were relative to the shaft angles!

Reading further, I see this from Bauval: "First Skyglobe, as you should know, does not take into account the proper motion of the stars (nor any other factor such as nutation, aberration, refraction) but merely accounts for the circular motion of precession. As an example, if you check carefully, you will see that the altitude of Al Nitak (the lower star of Orion's belt) in 10,500 BC as measured at the meridian is given by Skyglobe as being about 11.5 degrees.

**The 'true' value is nearer to 9 degrees, making Skyglobe value out by some 2.5 degrees.**Now in terms of the altitude (but not angular deviation) of Orion's belt that's a lot."

Here Bauval argues that the belt stars are within range ca 10.5kbc. Do you dispute this, Spiro?

"let me say that I have asked Dr. Professor Mary Bruck (astronomer and lecturer at Edinburgh University now retired) to check out Dr. Fairall's calculations. She confirms that the angle formed by Orion's belt (passing through the first two 'largest' stars i.e. Al Nitak and Al Nilam) at culmination in 10,500 BC was between 47 and 50 (40 to 43 degrees measured from the horizontal i.e. the horizon), the variation being dependent on whether or not nutation was allowed for in the calculations. This means that the variance between the average of these angles with that angle made by the two largest Pyramids --which is close to 45 degrees-- is between 2 and 5 degrees. Remember, however, that no one, unfortunately, can be 100 percent certain of these calculated values since, after all, they are theoretical (albeit using the best mathematical constants available) and not actually observed and measured. But assuming that they are true to reality, then what does it all really mean ? Like I pointed out in one of my replies to this question to Mark and which was published on TDG, the apparent size (or length) of Orion's belt is about 3 degrees in angular size (about the length of an A4 sheet of paper). Even if we take the higher variance of 5 degrees in angle, this means that the 'error' in question is in the order of a minute 1.5 percent margin! (i.e. 5 divided by 360 degrees). If we take the lower variance of 2 degrees, then we get an even much lower 'error' of less than 0.55 percent margin! "

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05-Dec-19 17:22 by Poster Boy.